Thursday, January 30, 2014

The Moms Take On Facebook and Instagram

On its Facebook page, shown, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is asking for that site and Instagram to ban firearms posts the group says are effectively online gun shows.

Moms Demand Action

Earlier this week, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America launched a campaign asking Facebook and Instagram to immediately enact a policy prohibiting all sales and trades of firearms on their platforms. These social media platforms provide an unregulated online marketplace where felons, domestic abusers, and other dangerous people can easily obtain firearms.
In response to Moms Demand Action’s announcement, a Facebook spokesperson told reporters that the company, which also owns Instagram, is unable to prevent private sales because its platforms are not used for e-commerce. Below is a statement from Moms Demand Action Founder Shannon Watts responding to Facebook’s claims that it is unable to prohibit gun sales:
“This argument is misleading and disingenuous. Craigslist, a social media platform used for buying and trading, already prohibits gun sales, and specifically calls out ‘firearms/guns and components’ in its list of ‘content prohibited on Craigslist.’

43 comments:

  1. Is she also going after Google because people can discuss a gun transaction over Gmail?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a little different than advertising guns for sale and specifying NO BACKGROUND CHECK. Are you really OK with that? Isn't that like fishing for disqualified people?

      Delete
    2. There is another group of people who would be interested in an off-the-record private transaction. Those who are legally allowed to own guns, but don’t like records being kept on their gun purchases.

      But, see all my comments about the Colburn amendment and giving people the tools to prove to each other they are not prohibited buyers.

      Delete
    3. The group of people who don't like to have records kept INCLUDE criminals and wife-beaters. This is a bad thing.

      So, is you big gotcha about Coburn simply more whining that the NICS is not open to all?

      Delete
    4. Criminals know better than to buy a gun from a licensed dealer. Good citizens realize that allowing the government to have too much information about us is a bad idea--see the NSA scandal in progress right now for an example.

      Delete
    5. If you are not a lying criminal coward why are you afraid legitimate questions, that are not a violation of your rights?
      Because you are a proven lying criminal coward and have plenty to hide from the government.

      Delete
    6. I'm the one whining about background checks now? Good one.

      Delete
    7. No, the whining i was referring to is the endless complaining that the NICS is not open to the public.

      Delete
    8. FYI, I don't want the NICS "open to the public", and Colburn's amendment doesn't do that. It is open to yourself. You run the check on yourself and use it as proof to the seller.

      But you're not endlessly complaining about private sales without background checks? I guarantee you’ve brought that up for times than I have about the acceptable way to do it.

      Delete
  2. Unchecked online sales is where criminals can get guns. You would think even the gun loons would support stopping those sales, but no, they would rather felons have a source for buying guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, it is a shame that there is no way citizens can access NICS in order to screen a potential buyer before such a sale.

      Delete
    2. It's a shame you don't support shutting down a source criminals can get guns.

      Delete
    3. I think it was the Democrats that would not support this solution that was proposed by a Republican as a method of having background checks on all gun sales.

      Delete
    4. You mean like Republicans who have voted against background checks for 30 years all of a sudden have a bill they know won't pass, then claim a lie like Democrats won't support background checks. HA HA HA HA HA HA Thanks I need a good laugh today. Next dishonest claim.

      Delete
    5. Care to show a link to a statement from a single Democrat in support of Colburn's bill?

      Delete
    6. No surprise a cowardly liar like you can't read either.
      Was the lying criminal coward your teacher also?
      The guy responsible for graduating the dumbest kids in the nation.

      Delete
  3. If one platform stops sales, another will take its place--likely some site run outside the United States where the Moms can't reach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do what we can do instead of doing nothing.

      Delete
    2. Unless it's about expanding the background check system for private use- then they'd rather do nothing.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, looking busy is not a solution. Rather than playing whack-a-mole, how about we all work on reducing the causes of violence in this country. That won't violate anyone's rights and would actually achieve the stated goal.

      Delete
    4. Doing nothing, is worse. You are not willing to do anything to reduce violence where guns are concerned.

      Delete
    5. That's not true. If you go to my blog, you'll see my suggestions for reducing violence in this country. I simply oppose something that would not achieve its stated goals, but would violate the rights of millions.

      Delete
    6. But you don't know that since real gun control hasn't been tried since the days of the old west, when it did work, and we have much better methods available now, than we did then. Some of the other items you mention will help but they are indirect methods that won't show results for years, not to mention Republican majority would never vote for the money needed to institute the methods you describe.

      Delete
    7. We also have more limits on government power which was fairly absolute in the old west. The sheriff got to make the rules, no Miranda. Really want to go back to those days?

      Delete
    8. Did I say that? No.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous, you did claim that gun control worked in the Old West. That's a broad claim, covering decades and many thousands of miles, and we have the stories of exactly when gun control failed in that time and place. And as Sarge points out, what success there was often came at a steep price.

      Besides, with more than 300,000,000 guns in the hands of some 100,000,000 Americans, we are realistically past the point where European-style gun control could happen here. And every time gun control is even discussed, those numbers go up.

      Delete
    10. Do you guys really think it's OK for a gun seller to advertise NO BACKGROUND CHECK? You guys have always claimed to be responsible yourselves. Don't you object to a gun owner who's obviously pandering to the disqualified buyer?

      Delete
    11. Mikeb, until we get a national agreement--perhaps through a new Constitutional amendment--that owning and carrying firearms is a basic right, I want lots of sales of guns to take place without the government knowing anything about them. Shuffle the deck. If you bought a gun and a background check was performed, find someone to trade guns with.

      See, your side could have had universal background checks. Senator Coburn offered a compromise. But I recall you posting an article here that quoted Laddie Everitt as objecting to Coburn's proposal as not being enough, because it didn't keep a record.

      And that's why I say that until you concede the fundamental principle I named above, we have no reason to make you any offers or deals. That's also why I conclude that your side's real goal is total disarmament of all private citizens.

      Delete
    12. Greg has said he tries to circumvent the law, so his position is usual, but dangerous.
      How many examples do you want. I give you Tombstone. It makes no difference because gun control in today's situation would be much different but it did work then and killings went down.

      "I want lots of sales of guns to take place without the government knowing anything about them."
      That's what I call dangerous. No check on felons and criminals buying guns.
      Again, one gun background bill out of over 20 in the last 30 years, this was the only one Republicans supported, knowing it won't pass because of politics. A poor example.

      Delete
    13. "...knowing it won't pass because of politics."

      Yeah, they probably knew the Democrats don't want a bill that only expands background checks- contrary to what they want us to believe.

      Delete
    14. Tombstone? That’s your example of tough gun control that we don’t do now? Are you kidding me? Tombstone enacted a carry ban, only within city limits, and they provided a place to check your weapon, and the penalty was only a fine. Could you imagine if DC or Chicago had laws that loose? Where all you have to do is drop your carry weapon off at the police station and pick it up on the way out of town (no questions asked), you can own anything you want in your home, and the penalty for getting caught is a mere fine? Yeah, right.

      The old west had some limitations on carry and only in a few city limits. Before the modern carry movement took off some20 years ago, that was basically the law for the entire country. And there are still “gun free zones” today. That’s all Tombstone was. They had signs that said you can’t carry here. That level of gun control is all over the place today- except with harsh criminal penalties and no convenient checking service.

      Delete
    15. Also, let's remember that the law enforcement in Tombstone wasn't exactly acting in the interests of everyone, considering how the Earps played favorites.

      Delete
    16. Yeah, I'm sure Virgil Earp allowed "permit carry". If he allowed you to carry, you could carry.

      Delete
    17. Since the killings took place in town, the in town ban worked and killing stopped. The same tactic worked in many towns.

      Delete
    18. 1) where is the evidence that this law stopped killing?
      2) why doesn't it work now?
      3) are you ok with not having constitutional carry as the only piece of gun control?

      Delete
    19. And let's add that since there were no metal detectors, no national background check system, and even no way to monitor what was being sold where, Tombstone's gun control was far more primitive than what exists in Chicago and D.C., so modern gun control ought to be much more effective.

      But what in fact we see is that violence clusters in large cities, many of which have strict gun control.

      Delete
    20. When you lying criminal cowards are proven wrong, you really squeal like pigs.

      Delete
    21. Do you really want a return to late 19th century gun laws? That would make you happy?

      Delete
    22. Are you going to continue that Lie? I never said that. It's sad you guys have nothing but lies to come back with, but no surprise coming from proven liars.

      Delete
    23. I asked it as a question. But what is it you want then? The laws of Tombstone are done all over the place today, plus a whole bunch more.

      Delete
    24. You liars just squeal like pigs when I prove you lied, It's funny to watch.

      Delete
    25. On advice from crimi8nals like you.
      Work hard to circumvent the law.
      Your words lying criminal coward.

      Delete
  4. Its ok. We have places like Armslist

    ReplyDelete